Royal Blue Print Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 205 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

ROYAL BLUE PRINT CO. 205
R. B. P. Inc., d/b/a Royal Blue Print Company and
Industrial, Technical & Professional Employees,
Division of National Maritime Union , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 20-RC-7440
June 28,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held at San Francisco, California, on
March 29, 1967, before Hearing Officer David F.
Sargent. Thereafter, the Petitioner and Employer
filed briefs. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of six
messengers and one messenger-drivers employed
at the Employer's blueprint and reprographic
establishment. The Employer contends that the
limited unit sought is not an appropriate one for col-
lective bargaining in the blueprint industry, and that
the only appropriate unit is a production and main-
tenance unit, which would include, in addition to
the messengers and driver, about 60 employees per-
forming work on diazo machines and various
presses and collating machines, as well as bookbin-
ders and artists and other classifications of em-
ployees.
The evidence herein shows that the Employer is
engaged in the production and distribution of
blueprints and allied graphic products at three loca-
tions in San Francisco, where it handles overflow
work for other concerns in the blueprint and repro-
graphic industry, and in addition reproduces prints
for architects, engineers, and other commercial
customers. Workload on reproduction projects fluc-
tuates widely from day to day depending upon
customer orders and the particular reproduction
process utilized to meet specific requirements.
' Hereinafter called driver.
However, regardless of the duplication process
used, prompt delivery of the finished product is of
prime importance to efficient operation in this ser-
vice industry.
Petitioner contends that the messengers (includ-
ing a driver who operates the Employer's only van)
principally perform separate and distinct messenger
duties requiring about 85 percent of their time, and
that their remaining duties, although involving
production, are so minimal and limited that the mes-
senger's work function is in no sense an integral
part of the Employer's production operations.
The evidence shows, however, that the Em-
ployer's operations fluctuate considerably both
from the standpoint of workload, which may reach
several hundred orders per day, and from the stand-
point of the variety of reproduction processes util-
ized, which are numerous. The messengers and
driver spend in excess of half of their time in the
plant moving reproduction materials from one work
station to another, and each morning some of them
also assist in the service control area, where
together with customer service employees they
identify and properly tag orders to assure their
systematic processing and expeditious delivery.
The Employer maintains a constant policy of per-
mitting messengers and drivers to train for produc-
tion positions, which policy is communicated to
them. These employees have periodically availed
themselves of this opportunity and qualified for
plant production positions. Messengers or drivers
making this transition receive dual supervision,
working under a dispatcher while delivering
customer orders, and under one of several produc-
tion department supervisors on work in the particu-
lar department where they are training. While not
all messengers or drivers prove qualified for the
transition to production positions, some have been
assigned to such classifications, and as they have
gained experience have been able to move from
their basic hourly rate ($1.50 to $1.70 per hour) to
the production scale ($1.70 to $4 per hour). The
evidence further shows that as regards all fringe
benefits there is no difference between messengers
and other employees. The messengers and drivers
also work the identical schedule that production
employees do both during their regular workweek,
and while performing overtime work. That inplant
duty of keeping material for reproduction projects
properly distributed to work stations to insure
systematic processing of customer orders utilizes
a substantial portion of their time and is closely re-
lated to the Employer's production operations.
Their adjunct duties performed while training for
production positions are even more important to the
same production process. In all the above circum-
stances we are of the opinion that the messengers
and drivers have no sufficient community of in-
terest separate from that of other production em-
ployees to warrant their establishment as a separate
appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purpo-
166 NLRB No. 25
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sec.2 On the contrary, we find that their interests broader than that described in its present petition,
are so closely related to those of the other produc- we shall dismiss the petition.
tion employees , so as to require their inclusion in an
overall production and maintenance unit .3 As the
Petitioner does not seek to represent any unit ORDER
2 E.H Koester Bakery Co, Inc., 136 NLRB 1006, 1011 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed
3 Brown Engineering Company , Inc, 123 NLRB 1619, 1621 herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed.